Races to Watch VII: Where Cash Has No Competition

Like reading tea leaves, one way to predict how a congressional race is going to go is by looking at the disparity in fundraising between the candidates. While this technique is not foolproof, it’ll get you there most of the time. What’s less clear, especially in races where incumbents are raising millions while their challengers are raising thousands (or less), is why incumbents need to amass such war chests. Is the money meant to scare off all viable competition, does it reflect donors’ confidence that the seat-holder will win re-election or is it just surplus cash given not so much to win an election as to gain access and influence with the lawmaker?

So far this election cycle, 280 House and Senate incumbents on November’s ballot have collected at least 10 times more than the opponent they face in the general election. The difference ranges from a House incumbent (Bill Delahunt, D-Mass.) raising $105,000 while his opponent hasn’t reported raising a dime, to a senator (Max Baucus, D-Mont.) raising $10.9 million in an uncontested race. Between the two parties, 185 Democratic incumbents are walloping their challengers in the money race, while 95 Republicans can claim the same.

“An incumbent may raise lots of money because he or she wants to scare away potential challengers,” said Justin Phillips, a political scientist at Columbia University. “It is difficult enough to unseat an entrenched incumbent, but it is even more difficult to unseat one who has a large war chest.”

The ability of incumbents to bring in so much money despite running unopposed is evidence that contributions are not made exclusively for the purpose of getting an incumbent re-elected. Incumbents who are chairs of powerful committees or have leadership positions are the most likely to bring in the big bucks, whether they’re in a tight race or not.

Donors, especially political action committees, might make a contribution to an incumbent who is essentially unopposed “to try to ensure they continue to have good access to him/her and possibly positively influence votes later on that the contributors are interested in,” University of Alabama political scientist William Stewart said.

An incumbent with a fundraising haul big enough to chase off all other challengers, clearing an easy path to victory, might actually feel less in debt to special interests than candidates who need every penny they can get, said Jess Brown of Athens State University in Alabama. “When a senator starts a term, he spends every nickel in his account and will have to spend a good bit of time during his six-year period restoring his campaign account,” Brown said.

Most incumbents, however, don’t need to raise lots of money, as they already have name recognition and an almost-certain chance of winning, especially in the House of Representatives. “The candidate in the general election who needs less money is in the position to raise more money, which many times creates a huge imbalance in the political marketplace,” Brown said.

The tremendous incumbent advantage in these contests makes them races to watch:

If you’re Sen. Tom Harkin, you’ve got nothing to worry about right now, at least as far as getting re-elected is concerned. With $8.1 million banked over the last six years (and not a penny of it from his own pocket), Harkin has raised nearly 700 times more than his opponent, Christopher Reed. Much of the money Harkin’s raised came in before he knew whether he’d be facing a candidate capable of collecting comparable dough, said Arthur Sanders, political scientist at Drake University in Des Moines. This strategy could help him win his first landslide election since he came into office in 1984–he has never won a U.S. Senate race with more than 55 percent of the vote.

Of course it helps that Harkin sits on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee and has been the chair of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee during an election cycle when the Farm Bill came up for reauthorization. Plenty of industries were vying for a piece of that pie. At $489,800, only two other senators have raised more from the agribusiness sector in the last two years than Harkin (excluding senators who have run for president). Agriculture is not among his three most generous industries for this election, however. Instead, lawyers and law firms ($591,900), health professionals ($347,850) and securities and investment companies ($341,500) have showered Harkin with greater support than his home-state industry.

Harkin’s appeal to health professionals is evident in his legislative record. During his congressional career, the member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has sponsored a national institute on alternative medicine and spearheaded a variety of legislation aimed at reducing childhood obesity in U.S. He also sponsored the first bill for the federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, which President Bush vetoed last year. Harkin’s top contributor, Herbalife Industries, which sells vitamins and other nutrition products, has given the senator $72,800. His other most generous contributors fall in line with his top industries: the private investment firm Texas Pacific Group has contributed $39,900 and agricultural products and services company Monsanto has given $27,200 (including contributions from the companies’ employees and, with the exception of Texas Pacific Group, PACs).

Although 75 percent of Harkin’s money has come from individuals, most of what he’s raised hasn’t come from Iowans, a point that opponent Reed is quick to point out. Just 17 percent of Harkin’s total haul comes from Iowans, totaling $738,050. The largest chunk of out-of-town money comes from Washington, D.C. ($646,700). At least 82 percent of Reed’s $11,500 is from residents living in the state.

“His money is coming from special-interest groups and outside organizations. Mine’s coming from the people actually going to the polls to support a candidate,” Reed said. “When I go to Washington, I’m not going to be beholden to special-interest groups. I won’t have to call my contributors to see how they need me to vote because of how much money they gave me. When I go to Washington and vote, it’ll be with only the interest of Iowa citizens in mind.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions has already spent $2.2 million. His opponent, state Sen. Vivian Davis Figures, has spent a mere $224,450. And while her bank account looked largely tapped out as of her last report, Sessions still had $193 left in the bank for every $1 Figures had, one reason victory seems assured for the incumbent.

“Sen. Sessions is virtually unopposed this year because his ideology and policy positions are in line with those of a majority of Alabama voters,” said William Stewart, a political scientist at the University of Alabama. “Also, no credible candidate would be able to raise enough money to compete against such a highly regarded, richly endowed incumbent.”

Part of the reason the two-term senator may be so flush with cash is because of the strong support he gets from the very people who get to vote for him: Alabama residents. Eighty-four percent of Sessions’s total contributions have come from within the state. While 91 percent of Figures’s total receipts are from donors in the state, Sessions’s three most generous contributors are all based in Alabama: energy company Southern Co., which is the parent company for Alabama Power ($81,800); law firm Balch & Bingham ($66,800) and technology services company Collazo Enterprises ($35,900). Other top donors to Sessions include professors and administrators of the University of South Alabama ($24,350) and state employees ($17,150). ActBlue, a PAC that collects money from progressive donors throughout the country, is one of Figures’s top contributors, collecting at least $10,900 for her.

Beyond representing a state where Southern Co. does business, the utility’s support of Sessions may stem from the fact that, as a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he advocates for a key item on Southern’s agenda: expanding nuclear power operations. Sessions has proposed building 50 new nuclear sites. Interestingly, Balch & Bingham, Sessions’s second most generous donor, lobbies on behalf of Southern Co. And, in true revolving door fashion, at least two current employees of the law firm have worked for Sessions, one as a member of his Judiciary Committee staff and the other as director of his Birmingham field office.

In addition to serving on the Senate’s energy and judiciary committees, Sessions is a member of the budget and armed services committees. The industries giving him the most money include lawyers and law firms ($412,450), retirees ($303,900) and real estate ($220,200). Figures’s top industries also include lawyers and law firms ($68,100) and retirees ($15,600). But Figures may not have had a chance from the start, said Jess Brown, political scientist at Athens State University, so donors have been going with the safer bet.

“Figures has been an effective state senator but not a household word. She had very little name recognition and very little interaction with county-level Democrats in the state,” Brown said. “The moment she became the candidate, I’m sure a lot of groups said, ‘six more years of Sessions,’ and started to write checks.”

It really only takes three words to explain why Rep. Charles Rangel has been such a successful fundraiser: Ways and Means. As the chair of one of the most powerful committees in Congress, many industries are looking to be in Rangel’s favor, allowing him to raise $4.6 million since the Democrats took over the House two years ago. Three other candidates–one Republican and two third-party candidates–have filed with the Federal Election Commission to challenge Rangel. And none of them have reported a single contribution.

“Usually incumbents who occupy privileged positions in Congress are able to raise more money,” Columbia University political scientist Justin Phillips said. “This includes party leaders and chairs of important committees. Members of the majority party also raise significantly more in campaign contributions than do their counterparts in the minority. So Congressman Rangel is well positioned to rake in the contributions.”

This is Rangel’s first cycle as the chair of the Ways and Means Committee–which regulates tax, health care and trade policy–and it’s showing in his money. Last year he established a joint fundraising committee with Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to collect contributions from lobbyists and PACs, which increased significantly after he became the Ways & Means chair. In the 2006 cycle, before acquiring the powerful position, Rangel raised about $2 million. He’s brought in more than twice that now despite running unopposed. Rangel has said that he’d prefer that corporate entities that want to gain his favor “support policies that would help his mostly African-American and Hispanic constituency in Harlem and other inner-city residents,” according to The Hill newspaper.

The congressman has managed to set his own fundraising record despite recent questions about his ethics. Rangel is under investigation for not reporting or paying taxes on income from a rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic. In addition, the House Ethics Committee is looking into three rent-controlled apartments in Harlem where Rangel has been living and running an office. Rangel also met fierce criticism recently when he used congressional stationery to solicit donations for a center to be named after him at the City University of New York.

In the last six years, Rangel’s top contributing industries have been those that come with some criticism given the country’s economic woes. He’s collected $340,200 from the insurance industry and $322,150 from securities and investment companies. His top donors include Citigroup ($61,950), insurance company AXA ($59,800) and Credit Suisse Group ($55,800). His list of top 20 contributors is filled with financial industry players.

Rangel also has the advantage of being a long-time incumbent, having been elected in 1970. In 2006 he won with 94 percent of the vote. He’s well known in his district and generally well liked, Phillips said. “He is relatively popular. He hasn’t done anything to really upset his constituents,” he said. “Voters rarely get rid of their member of Congress if he or she is particularly influential. In other words, there is a sense that congressman Rangel, despite his flaws, is good for his district.”

And Rangel hasn’t kept all of his money to himself. Over the last six years his leadership PAC, National Leadership PAC, has raised $4.5 million. He’s given away 39 percent of that to other congressional candidates, almost entirely to Democrats (he’s also supported a few third-party candidates along the way).

CRP Senior Researcher Douglas Weber contributed to this report.

*Indicates incumbent

No Contest:Top 25 incumbents who have raised at least 10 times more than their general election opponent

Name

Race

Incumbent Raised

Challenger Raised

Difference

Max Baucus (D)

Montana Senate

$10,872,340

$0

$10,872,340

Lindsey Graham (R)

South Carolina Senate

$9,124,443

$17,105

$9,107,338

Tom Harkin (D)

Iowa Senate

$8,139,857

$11,765

$8,128,092

Carl Levin (D)

Michigan Senate

$7,686,678

$152,733

$7,533,945

Frank R. Lautenberg (D)

New Jersey Senate

$8,194,434

$696,554

$7,497,880

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)

Delaware Senate

$7,177,083

$27,305

$7,149,778

Lamar Alexander (R)

Tennessee Senate

$7,224,788

$440,681

$6,784,107

Mark Pryor (D)

Arkansas Senate

$5,642,358

$11,097

$5,631,261

Jeff Sessions (R)

Alabama Senate

$5,855,001

$241,649

$5,613,352

Jay Rockefeller (D)

West Virginia Senate

$5,231,372

$42,149

$5,189,223

Ron Paul (R)

Texas 14

$4,953,668

$0

$4,953,668

Tim Johnson (D)

South Dakota Senate

$5,131,420

$462,262

$4,669,158

Charles B. Rangel (D)

New York 15

$4,615,945

$0

$4,615,945

John Boehner (R)

Ohio 08

$4,500,078

$16,159

$4,483,919

Jack Reed (D)

Rhode Island Senate

$4,450,369

$0

$4,450,369

Niki Tsongas (D)

Massachusetts 05

$3,098,029

$0

$3,098,029

Ron Klein (D)

Florida 22

$3,320,808

$286,620

$3,034,188

Steny H. Hoyer (D)

Maryland 05

$3,030,986

$4,546

$3,026,440

Eric Cantor (R)

Virginia 07

$3,024,218

$29,206

$2,995,012

James E. Clyburn (D)

South Carolina 06

$2,564,046

$0

$2,564,046

Allyson Schwartz (D)

Pennsylvania 13

$2,443,846

$92,870

$2,350,976

Rahm Emanuel (D)

Illinois 05

$2,335,430

$0

$2,335,430

John D. Dingell (D)

Michigan 15

$2,079,646

$12,636

$2,067,010

Thad Cochran (R)

Mississippi Senate

$2,060,277

$0

$2,060,277

Roy Blunt (R)

Missouri 07

$2,061,656

$26,189

$2,035,467

Robert Wexler (D)

Florida 19

$2,136,876

$136,632

$2,000,244

Totals based on data released electronically by the Federal Election Commission on Sept. 2, 2008. Senate data based on six-year totals.

With few exceptions, incumbents will out-raise their challengers–so far this election cycle, incumbents for Congress have raised nine times more than their challengers, on average, and there is not a single Senate race where the challenger has raised more money than the sitting senator. Although challengers aren’t winning the money race on the Senate side, the Center for Responsive Politics has identified 14 House races where the challenger surpassed the incumbent in fundraising after the most recent reporting period, through June…. (Continue)

Private interests and members of the public aren’t the only ones betting their money on the congressional candidates they hope will win (or retain) congressional seats. Lawmakers in both parties have a vested interest in seeing their own candidates succeed this November, with Democrats wanting to strengthen their majority and Republicans hoping to minimize their losses. Here we look at some of the candidates getting the largest cash infusions from their own parties, indicating a close race…. (Continue)

Barack Obama defended his decision not to accept public financing by arguing that running a campaign for the White House based on small contributions accomplishes what the public financing system aims to do but falls short of doing: curb the influence of outside interest groups. In many congressional races, the issue of who’s backing the candidate–wealthy donors or everyone else–is finding its way into debates over the best way to fix the economy and whether campaign contributions and lobbying by the financial sector had anything to do with today’s economic crisis. Capital Eye takes a closer look at some of these races. … (Continue)

The oil and gas industry, under the spotlight this fall with energy at the forefront of political discourse, isn’t hesitating to put some of its record profits into the hands of candidates who support its cause (or those it’s seeking to convert). So far this election cycle, the oil and gas industry has given $12.3 million total to congressional candidates. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has identified the candidates who have received the most money from oil and gas interests in this election cycle, and Capital Eye selected a few races to more deeply examine the impact of well-digger dollars on politics. … (Continue)

Registered lobbyists aren’t just getting the attention of lawmakers while on the job. Like any other member of the public, they, too, are able to contribute up to the maximum amount per election to candidates of their choice. The Center for Responsive Politics has identified the congressional races with candidates who are receiving the most money from registered lobbyists…. (Continue)

More than a quarter of the money raised by congressional candidates on the November ballot has come from business and labor PACs, not from individual donors, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Capital Eye has profiled some races where labor union and business PAC money is playing the largest role…. (Continue)

On its own, fundraising is a serious challenge; add the obstacle of navigating complicated campaign finance laws and it’s enough to deter many from the political arena. However, individuals with deep pockets can finance their own campaigns, and unlike contributions raised from other people, there is no limit to how much personal money candidates can give themselves. Capital Eye takes a look at the top self-funders seeking congressional office this election cycle…. (Continue)

Not at all to the chagrin of oil and gas companies (and lawmakers who have received campaign donations from them), Wall Street is the new black for congressional candidates looking to link their opponents to an unpopular industry. As federal lawmakers have wrestled with an economic bailout plan worth $700 billion, candidates who have received contributions from the financial sector are on the defensive. Find out which candidates are filling their war chests with money from the finance sector in Capital Eye’s final installment of Races to Watch. … (Continue)

Media Contact

Viveca Novak
(202) 354-0111
press@crp.org

Search

Archives

Categories

Count Cash & Make Change.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and
public policy. Whether you're a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen,
use our free site to shine light on your government.